Talk:Galaxy class/archive
Copyright violations Early copyvio Early text of this article was copied from the Daystrom Institute Technical Library and constituted a copyright violation. -- MinutiaeMan 14:34, 13 Jan 2004 (PST)\ :That is odd. I actually copied it from a very, very, very early version of my own website, which I still had on my computer. Ottens 10:45, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I checked out DITL's article on the Galaxy class, but it seems that article is completely different from MA's Galaxy class page. Unless you already removed the copyright violating texts? Ottens 12:33, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) Technical Manual copyvio :"This entire paragraph is copied from the Technical Manual and should be removed, IMHO -Famartin 02:26 UTC 09 November 2004" First of all; this sort of comments should always go on the Talk page, not in the public article. Secondaly; you may be right. I assume you are, since I dont feel like going through the Tech. Manual ;-). Do with it as you wish, remove it, change it, I dont mind. Ottens 17:03, 9 Nov 2004 (CET) :Well I wasn't sure if there was anyone who paid more attention to the article than I do, so I just wanted to get someone's attention with it. I've removed the offending text (there may be more but this struck out at me since it was a recent addition), but for posterity, am putting it in here: ::" General Overview ::''The ''Galaxy class starship is categorized as an Explorer, the largest vessel in Starfleet's classification system that includes cruiser, cargo carrier, tanker, surveyor, and scout. While most starships may be adapted for a variety of mission types, the vessel type designations describe their primary purpose.'' ::The combination of forces produced within the warp engine core and the flow of space and subspace around the vessel created the particular engineering solution to the problem of faster-than-light travel. The initial Starfleet requirement that a single spacecraft be able to perform as three distinct vehicles presented some rather complex computational challenges. ::The docked configuration presented the most efficient use of warp flight forces, but the stardrive section was also required to perform to specifications at warp velocities on its own, and the saucer module would have to have the capability of high sublight speed and possibly survive a separation at high warp. Scientists and engineers throughout the Federation, with all the deportment of composers and conductors, arranged sweeping curves, described vast volumes, and summoned up fantastic energies to bring their creation into existence. :--Famartin 04:45, 10 Nov 2004 (CET) Either way, you shouldn't put such notations in the main article text. Furthermore, we usually discuss first, before going around removing things from an article ;-) But if its a copyvio, it should be deleted. Ottens 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (CET) Copyvio #3 This article is now a copyvio. Directly taken from the TNG Technical Manual. It will be deleted, and reverted to a non-copyvio state. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 19:34, Aug 30, 2004 (CEST) :Damn Paramount! ''Famartin'' 00:00, Aug 31, 2004 (CEST) References "Normally I look for references in articles, but in this case it might prove to be a bit superflous (pardon my spelling). But perhaps in the more obscure sections of info that only show up in one episode or so, it might be a good idea to have a reference. -- Redge 16:20, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST)" :I have honestly no idea in which episode certain information was given. I believe some more obscure info on the Crew Quarters comes from the TNG Technical Manual... Ottens 19:36, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST) Well, no matter. If somebody finds one of the references, they can add them later. -- Redge 21:42, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I've added quite a lot of in-text references. I didn't add references where I didn't know a certain room was first seen (like the Ten Forward, or the Holodecks), as I don't always remember in which episode this was. So... there you have your references ;) Ottens 11:36, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST) Very good! Now we finally have a mature, good article concerning ST's number one ship! -- Redge 16:40, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST) Poker Rooms On that matter, I saw an episode the other day in which a couple of ensigns were followed around before and after their promotion to lieutenant. The bar keeper played poker against those junior officers, then joined Riker and the gang. So we know there are at least two poker rooms: one for junior and one for senior oficers. But I've forgotten the episode name. Anyone? -- Redge 16:46, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I saw the same episode. They were, however, playing poker in their quarters. Not in separate poker rooms. Ottens 19:13, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I am absolutely certain the room where these junior officers were playing poker was a crew quarters. However, the room where the senior officers usually play poker might be a separete room... Ottens 21:49, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Most often it is Riker's quarters, but as I recall Pulaski's quarters were once used (or possibly Worf's).. each time they met it was in a different person's crew quarters (each person's quarters had a specific decoration scheme: Riker's had his trombone, Picard the Mintakan blanket, Data's computer, Worf's blades, etc.) It should be fairly easy to differentiate who's quarters it was, but many poker episodes described whose room it was.--Captain Mike K. Bartel :I hope no one minds I removed the notice about the poker rooms, as we have no proof they were actually separate poker rooms... Ottens 12:40, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) Interior Shots The Interior shots aren't located too well... The shot should be placed by the discription, so people won't have to look for them. -- Redge 16:53, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I've changed it. Good suggestion Ottens 17:52, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) Same problem again, this time the last few shots. I think it would look better without that picture of the corridor. Could you maybe add some generic info on the corridors and place the picture next to it, that would clear things up I think. -- Redge 16:41, 3 Aug 2004 (CEST) Never mind, I got it. -- Redge 16:44, 3 Aug 2004 (CEST) :Lol. :P The problem is, that there is usually not that much to tell about corridors, but I still think it gives a nice impression of the interior of the vessel to show a corridor image... Ottens 17:02, 3 Aug 2004 (CEST) I vaguely remeberber something about Riker being lost and asking the computer for directions, somewhere in the first series. That should make for at least a line or two. Some other info could be added, like the difference between Galaxy corridors and other classes (or lack thereof), and maybe som background info on how they were created. Enough to make for at least a small paragraph. -- Redge 17:29, 3 Aug 2004 (CEST) :When you asked the Enterprise computer for a certain room or area, it would create flashing lights throughout the corridor, so you would know which say to walk... That's enough for me to love the Enterprise-D. ;) Ottens 17:41, 3 Aug 2004 (CEST) :: It just occurred to me, the episode "Where Silence has Lease," it seems like when they transported to the Yamato the corridors had kind of a silver tinge (sp?) rather than the tan that you see in the Enterprise. I don't know it really was more silver or if it was just the lighting or something, but it might be worth looking up and mentioning if different ships have different color schemes. Master systems display table Isn't the master systems display consol nickname of "pool table" a behind the scenes reference/in-joke and not an 'official' designation -- sort of like "glop-on-a-stick" is for a jumja stick? If so, it shouldn't be referenced that way and not as an 'official' designation. --Gvsualan 09:00, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC) Total numbers of ships in this class? Has there been any official estimate of how many Galaxy-class starships were produced during and after the Dominion War? The original order was 12, after all. :The original order of 12 is not canon, as it was never stated onscreen and only comes from "authorized" sources like the TM. What IS canon, however, is that there were indeed no fewer than 12. Three that we know of had been destroyed prior to the DS9 episode Sacrifice of Angels, and contrary to what the article says, there were no fewer than NINE present during the battle portrayed there. I took numerous screencaps from the sequence at the start of the main fighting, where several Galaxy Class ships attack a Catdassian ship in the foreground. I anmd my best friend both analyzed these screencaps, and we each independantly counted a minimum of nine Galaxy Class ships. Also, we both identified three more that were either Galaxy or possibly Akira class, but were too distant (small) to be identified for certain. This means that it is canon that there were at least twelve built, and it could be canon that 15 were built. :On top of all this, reasonable speculation supports the idea that there are in fact MANY Galaxy Class ships in Starfleet, possibly dozens. I say this because of the visual evidence and dialogue in Favor the Bold and Sacrifice of Angels. As I've mentioned, there were at least 9 to 12 Galaxies present for that battle. Dialogue indicated that the combined fleet of 600 Federation ships was "elements" of two of the three fleets Sisko wanted to take part in the attack. The word "elements" suggests that these were NOT the entire mentioned fleets, only parts of them. The fact that at least nine Galaxies were present from just these fleet "elements" indicates to me that there are likely several Galaxies in each Fleet, and we know from onscreen references that Starfleet was divided into at least ten fleets, which suggests several dozen Galaxies at a minimum. 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC) DS9 appearances There seem to be a few missing. Was a Galaxy class not seen in or ? Cetecean Ops This needs to be stated as a note that it was called this in an alternate timeline. Stating that it is an alternate timeline is NOT hairsplitting. THere is a lot about that ship, especially terminology, that was DIFFERENT in that timeline than from the main one. For example, rather than stardate, they used combat date. I think that it needs to be stated as an alternate timeline reference unless you can come up with one from the main timeline. Or are we also going to start saying that the Enterprise-D was rebuilt after it was destroyed and had a third engine mounted on it? No! We say that it happened in an alternate timeline. Why should this be any different than how we treat anything else? --OuroborosCobra talk 07:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC) :As I indicated over on my UserTalk page, the Bridge was still the Bridge, Engineering was still Engineering, Transporter Rooms were still Transporter Rooms. It's a simple location name, for Pete's sake...Capt Christopher Donovan 07:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC) ::No, not really. If something named in an alternate timeline wasn't named in in canon the "normal" timeline, we can't assume they were named the same thing, nor will we begin to. After all, the Captain's log in the alternate timeline is called the Military log, so obviously some things are different. --From Andoria with Love 08:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC) :So, if they had never used the names "Bridge" or "Engineering" in the Main Timeline, but only in YE, that those names too would be invalid? Does that work both ways? Would the alt End-D NOT have Jeffries Tubes just because we never HEARD the name mentioned in the ep?Capt Christopher Donovan 08:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC) ::Pretty much. ;) --From Andoria with Love 09:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC) :You've been hanging around OurobourosCobra too much... ;) I think that's being WAY too picky...Reason and common sense are our friends, we should use them... :That said, I get the feeling if I press the issue it'll result in a "revert war", so I won't waste all our time with it...Capt Christopher Donovan 07:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC) ::It would be nice of other archivists would get involved with this. Alas, I suppose it is not to be. :P --From Andoria with Love 09:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC) New text Some new content was just added: :These vessels were designed for unsupported missions of 10 to 20 years beyond Federation boarders, the first time starfleet ever attempted such an undertaking, and as such these vessels were designed to operate autonomously with little or no outside support from starfleet facilities.(Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual)'' I've got to put this into question. It just doesn't match up with what we saw in TNG. The Enterprise-D was often going to Starbases for various repair and resupply. While some of these were because of extraordinary circumstances, like combat with the Borg, others were not. Sure, the Enterprise did a lot of unusual things, but that would be expected of any vessel operating at the edge of or outside Federation space. We have also seen a lot of just plain maintainance, like new warp cores, and the Baryon sweep, the latter of which would have had to happen no matter what. As I understand our canon policy, the Tech Manual is a "restricted validity resource", and that anything from a "valid resource", like on screen, overrides it. I'd have to say that this is the case here. --OuroborosCobra talk 12:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC) :Well, yeah... policies partly aside (we need to talk about that another day, another place), each time we saw a galaxy class vessel in action, its current assignment was ''not a "long-time mission beyond Federation borders". Most prominent example, of course, is the Enterprise-D, which zipped around in local space starting in TNG season 1 and never stopped doing that until it crashed. I agree, that new information should be removed, or eventually changed to a background info dealing with all other sorts of TNGTM stuff. -- Cid Highwind 12:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC) ::Only because the Enterprise-D was the Federation Flagship and for political reasons that would be kept near the core of the Federation to "show the flag." We never saw any other Galaxy Class vessels other than the Yamato, most likely because they were indeed sent on these long missions, and were recalled with the approch of the Dominion War, and their firepower was needed, which is when we started seeing them in large numbers. We have it from the TM, the writers, and from Gene Roddenberry himself that the mission of the Galaxy Class was as I described. User:Modelshipbuilder 9:15am EST Sept. 6 2006 Umm, watch Deep Space Nine again. There is the USS Venture, the USS Odyssey, and the USS Galaxy herself, and that is just off the top of my head. It also does not change the problem of needing repairs and being self-sufficient. The fact that the Enterprise was not on the frontier means it should not have needed as much supplies and repairs, as it was not facing frontier conditions, and yet we always saw maintainence, going to Starbases, etc. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC) There is also the , which even adter the Dominion War was still apparently stationed around Earth. It was part of the fleet sent to intercept the Borg Sphere, and I doubt it could have gotten there fast enough if it was on the edge of the frontier. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC) ::Then Starfleet must have recalled them because political tensions required that the firepower of these ships would be needed closer to home. These ships were deffinatly intended to operate a long way from Fed, space. Why else would they have been built so large, or had families aboard? A Multi-mission vessel for operating inside Fed. space need not be any larger than the Excelsior Class. After the Dominion War Starfleet probably decided that deep long range missions were a bad idea, and changed the mission profile of the Galaxy Class to keep them in Fed. space. The real reason of course we never saw these ships on such missions is because the writters decided to confine their stories to the known Trek universe. User:Modelshipbuilder10:00am EST Sept. 6 2006 Look, the fact is we have never seen a Galaxy class ship matching the profile seen in the TM, and there is still the fact that the Enterprise sure had a lot of maintainence and stuff like that for a ship that is not supposed to need that over a 10 - 20 year period. As for size and such, we have two other example vessels at near the same side that also did not have the profile illustrated in the TM, the explorer and the warship. There were both seen to be operating in Federation space. Obviously size has some other advantage. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC) ::I've looked in the TM again, and found information saying that over the first 20 years or so of that Galaxy Class's life, it is expected that they will receive frequent maintance and upgrades at near yearly intervils until all the bugs are worked out and the best systems configuration is developed into the design, before they are sent out on these 10 to 20 year voyages. That explains why the Enterprise was having all the maintance work done on it that you described. It looks like we are both right about our views on the class. It seems that the ships arn't suppose to be sent on the mission that they were conseived for until they already have 20+ years of service on them. So you are correct about them plodding around Fed. space being used like any other Cruiser type ship, and I am correct about the primary mission that they were designed for, which seems to have been planned to occure later in these vessels service lives. User:Modelshipbuilder1:05 EST Sept. 6 2006 :::Its a good idea to design a ship that could get beyond Federation boarders though -- i mean, they stay at your house, you have to share the bathroom, label everything in the fridge... -- Captain M.K.B. 14:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC) :Apparently, it is necessary to have another look at the policy... It clearly states that information from the TM, no matter what, may be referenced but should be formatted as a background note. End of story (?). -- Cid Highwind 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC) ::::It might also be the case that Starfleet is fielding numerous Galaxy-class starships, and that due to their increasingly large numbers, Galaxy-class starships can be dispatched on deep-space exploratory missions as well as kept in strategically important areas of space, most notably the Federation core worlds (Andor, Tellar, Alpha Centauri, Earth etc.). I have just watched the DS9 episode "Sacrifice of Angels" and counted approximately 13 Galaxy-class starships. Certainly these cannot all be from the first or second batches. It is also quite conceivable that once Federation shipyards become familiar with the construction requirements of a ship, there is almost no reason why they couldn't produce Galaxys easier and faster. I think the first batch of Galaxys included Galaxy 70637, Challenger 71099 (this ship was established in our timeline as canon as she was present during Endgame), Yamato 71807, Enterprise 1701-D, Odyssey 71832 and Venture 71854. The second batch must have included Magellan and Trinculo 71867. Interestingly, if Enterprise had been assigned a normal registry number, it would have been between 71808 and 71831 . User:talksoup1701 12:05 EST Sept. 8 2006 All of which is speculation, and therefore has no place in the article. Just curious though, what is the basis for where you think the Enterprise-D registry number would have fallen? Do we really know the order of construction? --OuroborosCobra talk 13:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC) :::::It has been shown A LOT on the shows that Starfleet can build or refit any class of ship to do whatever Starfleet needs it to do. I think its pointless to suggest that a ship class has an umbrella mission profile.--Hribar 21:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, they can. The Galaxy Class, however, isn't designed to be refitted to a specific purpose, it is designed to do pretty much anything from day 1 without refit's being needed as badly as a normal ship. It just can't do them as well as a dedicated, single-purpose ship. – Fadm tyler 15:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Construction picture? I found this picture on the German MA. Is it from or a calendar? I don't recall seeing it in canon. -- StAkAr Karnak 15:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC) :It does actually appear in . --Jörg 15:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC) DYK suggestion *that the Borg Queen elevater thingy, the restrainment thingy of Locutus (on Enterprise), the restrainment thingy where Data created his daughter and the thingy where Geordi La Forge controlled the remote probe are in fact one and the same prop? **I think this one is built up as slightly more than it is, since the last three were all on the same set anyway (all took place in the cybernetics lab). **Well, to note the set, it was one of the new sets built for TNG Season 3, but ended up being extesively reused as other starships' bridges and other laboratories aboard starships. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel Please check if this needs to be added somewhere. I doubt it - as said, this is simply the same room... -- Cid Highwind 23:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Sidebar references What are the sources for the following sidebar stats: * Mass: 4,960,000 metric tons * Crew: approx. 1,016 (officers, enlisted, and civilian) * Armament: 12 Type-10 phaser arrays; 3 photon torpedo launchers I don't recall any of this coming from any one particular episode. Also how can "1016" be an "approx." number...sounds pretty specific to me? I do recall an instance or two that it was have said "over 1000" aboard. --Alan del Beccio 13:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC) :Well, the phaser count can probably be seen on the model. The mass comes from the DS9 TM (therefore should be background). I'm not sure on the crew compliment, in TNG is was repeatedly stated to be 1,014, not 1,016. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC) :Oh, the photon count. We definitely see 1 front and 1 rear tube on the show. People claim to have seen a third tube on the saucer, but no one has ever been able to show it to me. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ::The third tube is in the aft saucer, only usable when separated because it is in the "lip" of the saucer that sits on the drive section. Also, a visual count will reveal there are 11 banks: Dorsal and ventral saucer, ventral drive section, dorsal (2) and ventral (2) stern, ventral on each pylon, and two on the "neck" above shuttlebays 1&2= 11 banks. Just look at any toy, model, etc there are only 11 banks. As for the third tube, look at the ST:TNG Ent-D blueprints thing, or a scan of it or something, but it is there. --WTRiker 17:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC) ::: Reference to the third tube is strictly non-canon. Neither the TNG:TM or the blueprints are canon, and hence should not be included in the 'canon' portion of the article. There are also 12 arrays. You are missing the one on the 'nose' of the 'battle section' when the saucer disconnects. See this picture – Kv1at3485 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) ::Bad link for pic. Doesn't work.--WTRiker 00:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC) :::: Not to be too pendantic, but do you know for sure that there are twelve arrays? If Worf mentioned ten phasers, there's nothing "official" to say that there are actually twelve. A visual inspection is not proof by itself -- two of the "phaser arrays" might actually be something else altogether. I only say this to point out that the tech manuals are probably the best source for weapon arrays here. All the same, it is clear that there are at least thirteen phaser arrays on the Enterprise. Aside from the twelve already described, an additional phaser battery is apparently co-located with the forward torpedo tube. In , the Enterprise fires phasers (this is explicitly stated in the dialog, and occurs at about 40 minutes into the episode), and the exterior angle clearly shows the phaser beam originating from near the torpedo tube cover. Even if this is an SFX error, it's clearly an additional phaser beam, and is at least as canonical as the other twelve, and probably moreso than the added warp engine arrays from the Venture model (removed on the later CGI version). Starfighter 13:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Well, can we at least cite "1014" somehow? Also, I wonder if it would be a good idea too to add a footnote section in conjunction with the sidebar so that readers can see where said stats are coming from. --Alan del Beccio 14:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC) :Well, that footnote is something I've been trying to suggest for months. I've hated our sidebars, since almost none of the information is cited. I even created a forum thread on the subject. I'd love it if we implemented something to make this data have any credibility, as of right now, I don't lend our sidebars just about any credence. As for the crew number, that is from , , and . This is from the talk page at . --OuroborosCobra talk 14:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC) :::::The Tech Manual IS a "permitted resource" for additional information, and we've used it as such before. Capt Christopher Donovan 07:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC) ::::::I'm not sure where you read that. To quote the : :::::::The following resources may be referenced in ''Trek universe articles, but should be formatted as background information as described in Memory Alpha's Manual of Style.'' :::::::*Reference works created by production staff ::::::::*The Star Trek Encyclopedia ::::::::*The Star Trek Chronology ::::::::*'The ''Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual' ::::::::*'The Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual' ::::::--From Andoria with Love 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Phaser arrays 10 phasers Why does the article state that there are de facto only 10 phaser banks? Of course, this is what Worf claims in 'Conundrum', but why are the eleventh and twelveth phaser omitted as if they were just some sort of background information? They can be seen on the model, and that is also what is mentioned in the article! Hence Worf's statement can be nothing but some sort of production error... Of course it is odd if dialogue contradicts visual evidence, but the latter is acknowledged and proven in virtually every episode of TNG. So why are the mysterious 10 banks treated as if they were more correct? In my opinion it should be the other way round! 12 banks canon, and 10 banks in italics, with reference to 'Conundrum' and Worf's statement. Or is it possible that two of the twelve banks are just not of the X type ? – Ambassador 23:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 12 phaser arrays Are there for seriously 12 whole phaser arrays? I'm checking a model I have as well as a micrimachines toy and a pin-up poster with a really sweet-ass cutaway illustration that shows everything from what I presume are impulse engine reactor cores (2 on the saucer section and 1 on the stardrive section, each about the size of a cooling tower and corresponding to the number of external impulse engines we see on each section of the Big D). So far, my count for phaser banks is: *1 big, circular phaser bank circling the dorsal saucer section. *2 little phaser banks on the aft of the dorsal saucer section, just fore and inward of the saucer's external impulse engines. *2 little phaser banks on the aft of the dorsal stardrive section, just above the aft torpedo launcher. *2 little phaser banks on the ventral side of the stardrive section, one on the underside of each warp nacelle pylon. *1 medium-sized phaser bank on the ventral side of the stardrive section, just aft of the main deflector dish. *1 medium-sized phaser bank on the dorsal side of the command section which is only visible when the saucer is separated. *1 large, circular phaser bank circling the ventral side of the saucer section. That makes for a total of ten. Where are the other two? I think I might see a pair on the ventral side of the stardrive section approximately parallel to the two above the aft photon torpedo launcher, or perhaps on the ventral side of the saucer section just fore of the command section, but both these pairs of small phaser banks look as if they could just as easily be vents/thrusters like we see all over the hull of the Big D. I'd like it if the article would give the location of each major phaser bank or pair of phaser banks. Also, I only count 7 phaser arrays, with the pair of small phaser banks that I'm unsure as to the location of making an 8th array (if they are, as the only two candidates for their location that I could find would imply, a pair of small banks). --Syrak 06:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC) : You may wish to try looking for photos of the model they used to film the show/movies. The best I could come up with in a short time was: http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=176&pos=1089 It's from "All Good Things", and I don't think they modified that part of the model to make the alt-future version of the E-D. As for what makes something an 'array' or 'bank', I just say the Galaxy has (what?) three sizes of arrays. – Kv1at3485 16:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) A'ight, I see the last pair of phaser banks now. Also, I looked up "phaser array" here on Memory Alpha, and it's not quite what I thought it was. I was under the impression that a pair of phaser banks apparently intended to work primarily in concert, such as the pair of phaser banks on the dorsal-bow side of the ''Intrepid-class saucer section (those two big ones that take the place of the single big one on the E-D) or the dorsal-stern side of the Galaxy-class stardrive section (just above the aft torpedo tube) counted as a single phaser array. In an informal sense, I guess it still could (as an array of phaser banks), but that's not in vogue with the official terminology. Thanks for the help! --Syrak 17:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Torpedo Tube Phaser Is it really necessary to have the comment that they must have added phaser emitters to the torpedo tube just because of one VFX error? (It was admitted to be an error in the book "Star Trek the Next Generation Companion".) By using that logic, shouldn't we claim that some Andorians have pink skin on their backs because of the slip-up in TOS "Gamesters of Triskelion"? Or that there was another person in the room with Data, Picard, Spock, and Sela in "Reunification, Part II", because we see the face of a sound guy in a reflection? It makes no logical sense to me to try to make up a canonical excuse for something that was so clearly a VFX error, and one that has actually been officially recognized as such. Rogue Vulcan 21:20, October 14, 2009 (UTC) Ten Forward This sentence does not make sense: "It may be possible that the space was repurposed on vessels built or refit during the Dominion War, as the battleship Enterprise-D of an alternate timeline Enterprise had no such area." That's simply not true. There was a Ten Forward in this alternate timeline. – Ambassador 10:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Small typo Just a quick note - in the paragraph talking about: "Andrew Probert painted the below illustration of a future starship concept, strictly for his own enjoyment." There actually is no illustration below - is the first starship to the right (on top of the painting that hangs in Picard's ready room - which was also painted by Probert I think?) Removed section The following information was removed for being "opinion with no evidence." :) --From Andoria with Love 09:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC) :'' The Galaxy-class starship was among the most powerful battle platforms in Starfleet service in the 2360s, easily outclassing older ''Excelsior'' and vessels. The contemporary and ''New Orleans''-class designs were comparable in overall size and power. By the 2370s, its prowess was also complemented by and vessels. ( ; ) :On a one-to-one basis, the ''Galaxy-class outclassed ''K'Vort''-class warbirds and ''Galor''-class warships, but was underclassed compared with ''D'deridex''-class warbirds and Jem'Hadar battleships. ''D'Kora''-class marauders were a near-even match. ( ; )'' I just thought it would be nice to put in where the Galaxy class stacked up. I disagree that my additions were mere opinion -- after all, I cited the relevant engagements! --Captain Covington 16:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC) ::I disagree. the first piece are more speculation. the second one are better, but still, more opinion than evidence. It can be made better, need a rephrase :-). --Rom Ulan 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC) :::I believe there is reason to know where a Galaxy Class Starship stacks up to a D'Deridex class Warbird, but in my opinion its speculation to know how it compares to the K'Vort, Excellsior, Ambassador, Nebula, New Orleans, Jem'Hadar, or D'Kora. – Hossrex 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC) ::::I'm not sure there is evidence for the D'Deridex class. I can't think of a single case where we saw a Galaxy go up against a D'Deridex under anywhere near equal conditions. Usually there was no combat, or the D'Deridex outnumbered the Galaxy, or the D'Deridex briefly outnumbered them before some Klingons showed up, etc. Same with most of the others, we never really saw them go toe to toe one on one. We never even saw a New Orleans in combat, just some wreckage of one, never saw it fight an Excelsior or an Ambassador, and the only combat encounter side by side with an Ambassador was a bad measure of capabilities since the Enterprise-C was already heavily damaged. Most of the combats with K'Vorts I can recall weren't one on one. Not sure on D'Kora. As for the Jem'Hadar battleship, all we have to go on is the speculation in the show, not combat results. I remind you that other speculation on that design turned out to be false, namely the weakness that should have made it easy to destroy. That says to me we don't really know much about the capabilities for certain. We have seen that a Galaxy class is superior to a Type III Galor class. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Photon Torpedo Tubes I always thought that a Galaxy-class had 3 photon torpedo tubes. 2 on either side of the deflector dish, and one rear. If that's not the case, then what's the dot on the port side of the dish?--Gaeamil 02:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC) :In the image at right, you can see what was actually seen as used for torpedoes. It is in the center, that whole roughly one third the way up the neck above the deflector. The "ports" on either side of the deflector aren't ports at all, as we have seen. They aren't round as torpedo ports are, and they aren't shaped right, and most of all were never seen used for torpedoes (or anything else). What purpose they serve, we don't know. For all we know, they might tie into the sensor array or something. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Crew compliment I changed the Galaxy's crew to roughly 1,014, why does someone keep changing it back to approx. 1,016?– Fadm tyler 18:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC) : Because no one seems to know where the number you are adding keeps coming from.... --Alan 18:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC) ::Where, for that matter, is 1016 from? As I said earlier in the talk page when the sidebar was being discussed, 1014 is used numerous times ( , and if you do a little math) while 1016 has no citation, and was in fact challenged by you, Alan, as sourceless. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Removed from "Design and development" :It is also clear from an engineering and visual perspective that the ''Galaxy-class is the most volumetrically efficient design of any Federation starship, delivering 2.5 times the volume of a Sovereign class while only being 42% more massive (3.5 million compared with 5 million metric tons). This would (from a rational standpoint) make the Galaxy-class starship the design of choice for an all rounded ship, simply having the ability to deliver more of whatever is required within the confines of its frame. Whether the Galaxy-class is to be refitted as a dedicated battleship/deep space explorer, it is the most capable design of any Federation starship.'' Sounds like original research to me - or has this been stated either on-screen or at least by production sources (for inclusion as a background info)? -- Cid Highwind 11:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC) :I don't think it was ever said. Whether something is "efficient" or not is a matter of opinion, as we do not know by what measure efficiency is judged.--31dot 11:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC) What illustration? "Andrew Probert painted the upper illustration on the right". There is no illustration. I smell a copy-and-paste job... RobertM525 09:56, September 24, 2009 (UTC) :No, there was an image there but someone removed it without knowing that the image was referenced in the text. Not sure why it was removed though. — Morder (talk) 10:01, September 24, 2009 (UTC) :The image in question would be the first Illustration located on the right if you scroll down here. — Morder (talk) 10:09, September 24, 2009 (UTC) ::Any similarities in the text may be explained by the fact that I probably originally wrote the "Background information" section. Ottens 16:59, October 3, 2009 (UTC) Protection I have temporarily protected this page from editing by new/anonymous users due to the removal of seemingly valid information without explanation. If you have one, please post it here.--31dot 02:48, December 26, 2009 (UTC) Length of a Galaxy class starship I'd like to contest the listed length of 642.51 m. I have not seen a source anywhere that states this as the length of a Galaxy class starship. The Star Trek Encyclopedia says 641 m (so do Wikipedia and Memory Beta). :Indeed those lenght figures seem to come from DS9 TM. But I too don't remember anyone mentioning the exact size of the ship onscreen or on any computer graphic --Pseudohuman 12:58, January 30, 2010 (UTC) ::None of the published lengths are canon, so the number should be removed from the infobox, but the 642.51m figure does come from the DS9 tech manual. The text in that book was written by Rick Sternbach, and he has made a number of statements in the newsgroups saying that the size is 2108 feet (which converts to 642.5184m). In addition, the 2108-foot figure can be seen on the early TNG size comparison chart which I linked to on the Ambassador page, on Ed Whitefire's unpublished blueprints which were made with access to the early TNG art department, and a variety of other early sources. Thus the evidence is much more in favor of the 2108-foot figure coming from Andrew Probert's orthos, although there is no definite confirmation either way - Andrew Probert wasn't sure offhand when I emailed him. – NotOfTheBody 13:19, January 30, 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Looks to me like a conversion error. Sad to know these still exist in the 23rd century... :::The ship originally had bike rack installed on the stern and a push bar up front. The bike rack was 3 ft long, and the push bar 2. They've since been taken off. In all seriousness, it's entirely possible that the might add or remove external equipment (sensors, lights, antenna, etc) that could change the figure slightly. Blue lights at main shuttle bay If you look out of the main shuttle bay onto the saucer's hull, just some 30 meters away, there are two... erm... "signs" with an estimated diameter of 10 meters, consisting of a number of smaller parts. Sometimes they are glowing pale blue, sometimes they are dull black. What are they? What function do they fulfill? Under which circumstances do they glow and don't? A buddy told me those are approach lights for the shuttles. This makes sense to me, but: In a movie picture the pattern are all black but two smaller parts of it, which are illuminated in white, as if they were windows (though this picture looked CGI to me). Kleinalrik 11:50, February 5, 2010 (UTC) :I've always thought they were some kind of gym or Arboretum, like the large blue lights on the side of the A were. – Fadm tyler 13:11, February 5, 2010 (UTC) ::They are indeed the arboretum, according to Rick Sternbach's blueprints. http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-the-next-generation-enterprise-sheet-1.jpg --Pseudohuman 12:16, February 6, 2010 (UTC) :::Thank you both! And thank you Pseudohuman for the blueprints-link. Literally, it is just an opaque window of a blue illuminated hall? Are there movie-pictures of the arboretum? 22:14, February 6, 2010 (UTC) ::Arboretum interior was seen in . --Pseudohuman 12:42, February 7, 2010 (UTC) :::Thank you, dude! 18:15, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Scale in comparrison with Humanoid form I was watching and noticed a scene in which Q and Amanda Rogers transport to the outer-aft section of the Enterprise. I figured it would make a good addition to the Galaxy class article to demonstrate the size of the ship in comparrison with a Human but I can't really find a decent place to put it in the article. I've included the image here, I hope someone with more experience editing Memory Alpha (It's a bit more complex than some of the Wikis I'm used to) can find a way to incorporate it into the article (if it's deemed necessary). --Plaguebeard 11:03, July 2, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not really sure it would be appropriate, as there is no way of telling if Q and Amanda were retaining their normal humanoid sizes while standing on the hull (in other words, "they might be giants"). -Angry Future Romulan 14:01, July 2, 2010 (UTC) ::They look to be scaled to Human size, in that scene, considering that we know how big the ship is supposed to be. In any case i put it as the first image of the physical arrangement section. --00:30, July 3, 2010 (UTC) No Proof For Ground Construction There is no proof for this statement: "Major component construction of Galaxy-class ships was carried out both in orbit and at ground based facilities." The galaxy shown in that image may be for officer training, salvage, or other purposes. It was never stated as being in construction Heaney 19:39, October 27, 2010 (UTC) :I'm pretty sure it was stated somewhere that the Enterprise was constructed there. Anybody care to back me up with a specific reference? -Angry Future Romulan 19:42, October 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Utopia Planitia's surface facilites were shown in , as shown in this photo. --31dot 00:50, October 28, 2010 (UTC) The enterprise was constructed in Orbit of mars was it not? - Heaney 15:34, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::This article is not about the Enterprise, it is about the Galaxy class in general, at least some of which was built on the surface of Mars. For all we know construction starts on the surface and moves into orbit. The statement is correct.--31dot 16:55, October 31, 2010 (UTC) Read my original post! I said. The galaxy shown in that image: may be for officer training, salvage, or other purposes. It was never stated as being a ship in construction - Heaney 17:03, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::That is speculation, and aside from that unlikely. Utopia Planitia is where Starfleet has a shipyard. That is a picture of Utopia Planitia. Absent evidence(such as a specific statement) of your claim, we assume that what we see is correct.--31dot 17:11, October 31, 2010 (UTC) shows the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards, in orbit. Not on the ground. It would be stupid to build a ship on the surface. - Heaney 17:38, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::Whether it is "stupid" or not is irrelevant- it is apparently not stupid to them. We don't have to know the reason it makes sense to do so in order to have it in the article. The point it is it is speculation to say otherwise without evidence from canon.--31dot 17:51, October 31, 2010 (UTC) That's MY point!! It's speculation to say that it is a "Galaxy class ship under construction at Utopia Planitia" without evidence from canon! --Heaney 17:52, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::No, it is not. We assume that what we see it what it appears to be unless told otherwise- which is a ship under construction. Just as a picture of Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton unless we are told otherwise.--31dot 17:56, October 31, 2010 (UTC) :::Utopia Planitia is a ship construction yard. This was a picture of Utopia Planitia. Ergo, a starship under construction. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:41, November 1, 2010 (UTC) Utopia Planitia is an ORBITAL ship construction yard. This was a picture of the ground. Ergo, possibly a starship under construction but NOT necessarily. Heaney 11:10, November 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::There is no proof that ships are only constructed in orbit, so we have no reason to assume that a ship in pieces isn't under construction, therefore the ship on the ground is under construction. - 16:37, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :::Utopia Planitia is never called an "orbital ship construction yard" or an "orbital" anything. We know it has orbital construction facilities because we have seen them, but nothing has ever been stated to indicate it is exclusively orbital. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:59, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::In the quantum reality where this image is from, Cardassians were spying on Federation sites involved with new starship development. Also an uncited note (next gen companion? tngtm? encyclopedia?) in our Unnamed Galaxy class starships states: "Although barely visible, Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda's original intentions was for this to be a Galaxy-class ship under construction. Later however, they realized it wouldn't be very logical to be built on the surface, as it would require more energy to take the parts into orbit than necessary. One response to this they suggested is that it was for officer training." Though it's propably pretty easy to counter Mars's gravity with a simple tractor beam... but still, i'm not sure it is that clear of an issue... --Pseudohuman 16:54, November 2, 2010 (UTC) ::That would be a valid background note, but since the original intention was for it to be what we see, a ship under construction- and nothing contradicts that in canon, the line in dispute is still fine.--31dot 16:57, November 2, 2010 (UTC) Galaxy Class Ablative Hull Armor I would like to contest the incorrect and repeated re-editing of the Galaxy Class page to not have Ablative hull armor, as it is clearly stated on page 23 of the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual in the form of the paragraph: "The outermost hull layer is composed of a 1.6 cm sheet of AGP ablative ceramic fabric chemically bonded onto a substrate of 0.15 cm tritanium foil. This material is formed into segments of approximately 3.7 m2 and is attached to the radiation attenuation layer by a series of duranium fasteners, which allows individual segments to be replaced as necessary." I'd say that's pretty conclusive, and the TM is a supported source of information. So Sulfur, stop incorrectly editing the Galaxy class' info page, as well as the ablative armor page. :The TM isn't canon. - 01:37, November 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Further aside, I am pretty certain in DS9 that Ablative armor was something rather new, and it was a total surprise to Starfleet Operations that it was on the hull of the . Mostly though, as Archduk3 has said, the Technical Manual is not canon (and in a further point, has been contradicted several times anyway) --Terran Officer 01:52, November 27, 2010 (UTC) First of all, it was fairly clear they knew what ablative armor was, and didn't actually show surprise; they showed annoyance. Furthermore, there has been no instance in canon which contradicts this statement by the TNG tech manual. :::Insofar as I understand it, the TM is stated to be a source that's accepted by MA, albeit with the caveat that it should only be used for background information. :::Further there is no canonical contradiction to the TNG TM on this point. The fact that there was surprise over the Defiant class specifically having ablative armor in no way proves, or even necessarily suggests, that it was a new form of armor that had never been used before, and in no way proves that the Galaxy class, or any other class, lacks this form of armor. Catamount1412 02:22, November 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::It should only be used for BG info. It doesn't mean that it is canon. The TM is non-canon. BG only. It may or may not have been obviously contradicted, that's a point of contention (obviously). Regardless, it does not belong in the main section of the article. ::::Finally, please sign your comments. -- sulfur 02:14, November 27, 2010 (UTC) :::It's entirely possible that there is something in canon explicitly contradicting the TM on this point, but if anyone wants to claim that there is, then the burden of proof is on them to show such an instance in order to show that the TM is wrong. The point about it belonging in BG info is, of course, correct. -- Catamount1412 02:23, November 27, 2010 (UTC) USS Trinculo In the Haynes Enterprise Owners' Workshop Manual (2010) there's a list of Galaxy-class ships which does include the USS Trinculo NCC-71867. I know that reference manuals are non-canon, but it would seem that the book was reviewed by the Okudas, so they possibly agree with this or even provided the information themselves. I don't think this affects the article but it's interesting to see that this ship is viewed as somewhat official, even though we have no proof of any on-screen appearance. --ANdRu 17:35, January 20, 2011 (UTC) :The ship has it's own real-world view article, , so feel free to add this new mentioning of it there. --Pseudohuman 05:45, January 21, 2011 (UTC) ::Oh sorry, there is a Trinculo page indeed, somehow I missed it. Thanks! --ANdRu 11:03, January 21, 2011 (UTC) Saucer section torpedo launcher According to the bg-note "The aft-firing saucer launcher was never established in dialogue, but is visible on the filming model." Is it? Is there a picture of the filming model somewhere where you can see this torpedo port? A link to the pic would also be nice in the article. I for one have not been able to see the launcher in for example the separation sequences in . --Pseudohuman 05:01, June 8, 2011 (UTC) :I have wondered the same thing. I have just watched Generations and I saw no evidence of this. What was he talking about? (Psydev 15:46, July 6, 2011 (UTC)) Looks like it was intended to be on deck 14 at the spot where in the actual model there is only plain hull and the text "Enterprise NCC-1701-D", according to Sternbachs plans http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-the-next-generation-enterprise-sheet-9.jpg I corrected the bgnote to reflect this. --Pseudohuman 21:22, July 6, 2011 (UTC) ::See page 128 of the ST:TNG Technical Manual. An aft-facing torpedo launcher in the saucer section is shown in the diagram. :::The tech manuals are not canon; please review the canon policy. It can be mentioned in the Background section, if not already. 31dot (talk) 02:57, July 22, 2012 (UTC) Details on the launcher are mentioned in the bgnote in the tactical systems segment. --Pseudohuman (talk) 04:21, July 22, 2012 (UTC) self cleaning It should be added somewhere that the ship will clean itself, who knows how this is done, or if it is specific to the galaxy class, riker mentioned the self cleaning in up the long ladder Galaxy class phasers how exactly did you people notice 14 phaser arrays on the galaxy? the ship has only 12. :Us people noticed 14 arrays on the and 12 on the regular configuration. --Pseudohuman 17:02, March 4, 2012 (UTC) The point of my edits was that the Galaxy Class is heavily armed despite not being a battleship. Instead of taking that as it is, and since its so damn hard to FIND full DS9 episodes, you go 'no source, don't care what you say'. Stop it with the elitism.--NaruHina fan 20:32, March 16, 2012 (UTC) :If it's elitist to require you to back up your information, then guilty as charged. We ask that all information be supported. If you have information that you cannot cite until a later time, or wish someone else to check it for you, then you should post it on the talk page of the relevant article.--31dot 20:36, March 16, 2012 (UTC) No, its elitist to go in and ignore what was said. The main point I was trying to make is how heavily armed the Galaxy-class is despite not being a warship. I forget the exact episode where the Galaxy-class was mentioned to be a battleship in DS9, but its out there. Who could check it?--NaruHina fan 20:52, March 16, 2012 (UTC) ::If your "point" is that this class is heavily armed without it being called a battleship, then why are we looking for the use of the term "battleship" in an episode to support your use of the term "warship", which apparently is unfounded? As for it being hard to find full episodes of DS9, I'm not buying that, since we have a whole box of where you can watch episodes on the main page, and a simple Google search will find you transcripts and Trekcore is full of screencaps. If you don't even know what you're talking about, why does that have any place in a location where people expect the writers to back up what is written with citations? - 20:58, March 16, 2012 (UTC) :::Only episode I can remember that comes close is where the size of the Jem'Hadar battleship is compared to two Galaxy-class starships... We dont remove uncited notes because we dont care about the contributions, we just care a great deal more about our articles being as 100% accurate to canon as possible. so we don't allow any additions that are not backed up by a reference. It is not meant as an offense. --Pseudohuman 21:17, March 16, 2012 (UTC) ::::You can download all of the Star Trek scripts from . You can then unzip them and do text searches within them to see if a particular word was used in an episode, or to help find an episode more easily. Psydev 07:14, March 19, 2012 (UTC) :::::The Enterprise has been designated a battleship in the episodes and .Throwback (talk) 04:23, July 22, 2012 (UTC) ::One episode of which was an alternate timeline, and the other episode was where the crew had been mentally altered and the ship's computer, too. 31dot (talk) 11:15, July 22, 2012 (UTC) Speeds in sidebar The sidebar has gotten crowded with various significant speeds this class can reach; normal cruise speed, top cruise speed, and three different emergency top speeds with various consequences. As the sidebar isn't a substitute for reading the article and is meant to provide only the highlights, I'm thinking this should be kept to a bare minimum- I have three there now which seems reasonable, but if we cannot agree on what should be there, I would suggest that there simply be a link to the Propulsion section and we can list the speeds there. 31dot (talk) 16:51, September 26, 2012 (UTC) Battleship The "battleship" classification was added by an anon and then removed. However, the page for battleship states that the Galaxy class was referred to this in certain alternate timelines, so personally I think it would be fair to restore it. It's also worth noting that it was used heavily for combat during the Dominion War even in the prime timeline. Thoughts? ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:19, March 29, 2014 (UTC) :And in the Mirror Universe the NX class was consider to be a battle cruiser, but now we don't put in that it was a battleship. I think it is mentioned further down, but the sidebar primarily has info from the prime universe. Though as well it was used in combat, the federation still don't designate their ships in such a manner. Take for example the defiant, officially being called and escort ship though primarily built for war. --BorgKnight (talk) 21:36, March 29, 2014 (UTC) ::Sidebars should only contain information from the subject's "main" timeline/universe/reality. - 21:46, March 29, 2014 (UTC) Ah, okay, makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:47, March 29, 2014 (UTC) :Archduk3, would that mean that on the NX class page, mention of ownership of the NX class by the mirror universe Starfleet should be removed? --BorgKnight (talk) 21:54, March 29, 2014 (UTC) And the Terran Empire, for that matter? ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:58, March 29, 2014 (UTC) ::The short answer is yes. - 23:02, March 29, 2014 (UTC) :::I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the sidebars should not include notes of common use in the MU, as MU is so interactive and intertwined with the prime reality. --Pseudohuman (talk) 08:36, March 30, 2014 (UTC) :I disagree seeing as they are not that intertwined as you say. Very few articles had information in the sidebar related to the mirror universe. --BorgKnight (talk) 17:56, March 30, 2014 (UTC)